You are on page 1of 2



Summary of the case: Case is about two consolidated petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for a TRO, both assailing the constitutionality of the
Bouncing Checks Law or BP Blg. 22.


Both petitioners pray that the court order the Metropolitan Trial Court of Navotas and Caloocan
to cease and desist from proceeding with their criminal cases.
Petitioner Arceta and Dy are both charged with violation of BP Blg 22 after issuing checks which
were dishonoured by their respective drawee banks for reason Drawn against insufficient
funds and Account Closed
Petitioner Arceta after being charged did not move to dismiss the information filed against her
but pleaded not guilty and stated that her arraignment should be without prejudice to any other
actions she would take to suspend the proceedings in the trial court.
Petitioner Dy also did not move to dismiss the charges against her and instead filed a petition in
the SC for judicial review.


W/N BP Blg 22 is unconstitutional


Petitions dismissed for lack of merit

Requisites of Judicial Review

o Actual Case or Controversy
o Personal and substantial interest of the party raising constitutional question
o Exercise of judicial review at the earliest opportunity
o Constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case


Petitions were anchored on Rule 65 Section 1 of the Rules of Court1

1 Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs
as law and justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies
of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1a)
o Under this rule only questions regarding GADALEJ (grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction) can be raised.
o Nowhere in the petition was issue of GADALEJ raised
o Ignored hierarchy of courts stated in Rule 65 Sec. 4 of the rules of court2


Does not mean immediately elevating matter in the supreme court.

Petitioners filed petition at the SC after being charged at the MeTC


Every law shall be presumed constitutional.

In questioning the constitutionality of a statute, one must show that there is a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution

Section 4. When and where petition filed. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of
the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion
is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a
corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as
defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or
omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in
and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding
fifteen (15) days.